View Full Version : Promising news about the ai
As some modders at TWC have been able to crack the first demo to allow unscripted custom battles of a sort, there have been some very good results reported in relation to the ai. Check this thread out for more info.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66036&page=1&pp=20
That dpes sound good :yes: Lets hope it wasnt just a fluke on the AI's part lol :sweatdrop:
So basically what was said in the developers blog is potentially right.
~;) I wonder whether you guys could trust Palamedes without cracking the demo ....
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-25-2006, 00:20
Hmm Looks good. Hope the AI is better in the "Finsihed" game though..
shifty157
10-25-2006, 00:28
~;) I wonder whether you guys could trust Palamedes without cracking the demo ....
Well CA was saying some nice things about the AI before RTW's release.
Also listen to the 5th podcast on the official site, talks about some technical AI stuff that sounded pretty good :)
I was really tempted to post a new thread just to make sure everyone got the news but it makes more sense for me to post in here.
I just read an incredibly insightful post by one of the developers (Palamedes) over at the official forums. He was posting in reaction to the negative reaction people have had over the AI in the older (Build 47) demo.
This is amazing stuff; amazing as in this is the single most informative post on the AI I have ever seen coming from one of the developers...
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessageRange?topicID=5133.topic&start=41&stop=59
Ok guys to be fair to those with concerns……………..
I will give you a slight insight into what we have done with the current AI. In previous titles AI's focus was target acquisition and movement, they would choose appropriate targets and move toward them. M2TW’s AI system adds a preference for maintaining formation.
From a developers point of view a balance has to be found between perceived intelligence and actual intelligence. For example a lone infantry unit guarding a village outnumbered by horse archers may withdraw to the plaza and hold its ground. It will continue to stand there and not move even though its being shot. This is actually intelligent because better to be shot in its plaza than run after horse archers in the open. However the lack of movement was perceived dumb or worse broken. To address this particular example a little movement back and forth was added to give the impression of thought.
As far as I know all you veterans out there should know that the way to beat battle AI in the past is to use a few units to draw off many AI units. You then stack the units that weren’t drawn away, route them and then move on the units now chasing your “bait”. Movement equals perceived intelligence so previously staying as a group was secondary to chasing a target that you knew you could kill.
It would have been very easy and safe to leave the AI in this state, however we took the risk to do what no previous title has done with battle AI. Once all battle mechanics were finalized Iain, Artem and myself worked like crazy to employ logic many multiplayer’s would know and appreciate. For human players it’s all about getting more men to the engagement first and maintaining a formation with the rest of the army. The players that don’t keep their units together loose, those that do keep them in formation win.
When we first introduced the new logic the AI became very cautious, players could not draw any units away from the main army but the army stopped and assessed its next move too slowly. This was then sped up but caused it to digress into not considering army formation any longer. We kept refining this until a good balance was found. Once this was achieved all related exploits had to be addressed. The last of which was that when the AI group moved toward its primary target you could keep charging lone cavalry units into the army’s rear and it wouldn’t respond at all. Unfortunately this last fix generated another exploit that made it into build 52 which is Gold. If you interact with the AI it does fine but if you don’t it will move to charge distance and wait for you to make a move, indefinitely.
This was fixed a few days later with many other fixes that will be available for the first update that as far as I know will be available on release.
I know for many what us developers say maybe seen as lip service so my best advice is listen to Epistolary Richard from the .ORG. We have flown him to our studio for 10 days as a community representative here to help us grasp how we can best support modding. He played build 52 today and while doing custom battle tests found the AI defect in question. I then asked him to try using the build with the update fixes installed, as far as I know he is yet to win a battle.
Anyway I picked him up at the airport at 6:30am today and his head hit the table with fatigue by 2:00pm, so we carried him to his hotel where I am assuming he is sleeping like a baby. Anyway I will ask him if he would like to respond to this thread tomorrow if he finds his way to the studio (man should have given him breadcrumbs or pebbles hey it's Australia at most he will be an hour late drunk wearing shorts, singlet and thongs).
What you will love and ER is yet to see, is that when the AI has more missile strength than you it will ensure that its non-skirmish units all skirmish as a battle group so that it can continue to shoot you to pieces. For those that know TW battle AI you know that this change is major, previously when you lost the shootout you could just charge and the AI would oblige and charge back not using its missile superiority. Anyway tomorrow I will set up a custom battle between a Mongol hit and run army and a slow moving infantry heavy European army, ER can play it and I will ask if he can give you an accurate assessment of where AI is at.
So to conclude build 47 was still in very basic overly defensive form, 48-50 smoothed it out, 51 & 52 fixed exploits and introduced a silly one that you wont notice unless you go answer the phone come back and realize “hey, what’s it waiting for?”. The first update fixes this and smoothes out the movement even further. The battle AI has so much good stuff in it and more importantly it will continue to evolve. Already we are designing shootout phase logic with cavalry skirmishing, and better use of elevation and vegetation. This will continue indefinately untill we have a battle AI system we can say is the best out there.
Man this turned into a long post………… please excuse any lack of clarity its getting late and my Wife will kick my ass soon.
Jason
:2thumbsup: :thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
Bob the Insane
10-25-2006, 17:19
Wow...
I work in business software as a support manager and if one of our developers did that the Product Manager would gut him... :laugh4:
Still, that was cool...
Wow...
I work in business software as a support manager and if one of our developers did that the Product Manager would gut him... :laugh4:
Still, that was cool...
I know, CA has never done (or allowed?) this kind of posting in the past. Either Palamedes crossed the line of non-disclosure or this truly is a sign that CA is going to great lengths to reach out to the hardcore TW community. I wonder if this newfound dialogue between CA and the TW community is the direct result of CA being owned by Sega instead of Activision?
Now I'd be positively giddy if CA commented on how they improved the strategic AI as well...
I must say Palamedes' post has done wonders to boost my optimistic expectations for MTW2. I think I'm perilously close to jumping down from the fence... :beam:
I like this version of CA :D
Annie
Vladimir
10-25-2006, 17:37
Way to go ER!!!
My *MTW* experience with AI is slightly different. I didn't think the AI was stupid by standing and taking shots from my HAs but that at maximum range they not only turned their backs but they bunched up as well! That was stupid, find some trees and give each other some space! :furious3:
I still think that with this build I can use the Jinettespam. I doubt the AI will be cav heavy and it'll HAVE to react to half a dozen units charging the line and firing javelins. It will take too many missile units to counter them. Using units like them and mounted X-bows it is possible to confuse the units and lead to the creation of stragglers. How will their army react to being pincered *and* anviled?
Edit: I do like the work they have done, however and I have an understanding of how difficult such a task can be, especially considering that AI programming is one of the last things to be done and doesn’t get much time.
fallen851
10-25-2006, 17:44
I like this version of CA :D
Annie
For along time I cursed CA in ways that wouldn't get me warnings on this forum, upset that a game with so much potential turned out so wrong (RTW).
Palamedes post may make me rethink CA.
edyzmedieval
10-25-2006, 17:44
Wow, that's awesome news. Really incredible.
Zatoichi
10-25-2006, 17:47
That was a great post - kudos to Jason for going into so much detail.
I look forward to seeing EP's AAR post tomorrow - jet lag permitting!
Sounds like we get a patch on the day of release, which will be a first (excluding the Multiplayer patch for Rome). That's a bit of a shame, but still pretty encouraging in terms of support!
frogbeastegg
10-25-2006, 18:01
I like this version of CA :D
Agreed. It's this kind of detail which makes it easier for me to believe something without adding a pinch of salt. I'm a sceptical frog at heart.
This sounds fabulous. I'm now really looking forward to playing the game at the Kew Bridge event and seeing this in action. I wonder which version will be on display there?
Lord_Phan
10-25-2006, 18:28
I like everything he said except the part about standing around getting shot being better then charging.
A lone infantry unit standing around getting shot has a 0% chance of living, as opposed to your 1 in a million shot with Charging the Horse Archers. Thus, You must Charge.
Kor Khan
10-25-2006, 18:37
I'm not sure I agree: Imagine you are one of a unit of infantrymen and you have a big shield. Surely the best way of surviving against a horde of horse archers would be to cower behind your shield and armor until they run out of arrows. Then you and your mates could bunch up into a tight formation and hold your ground, forcing the horse archers to either engage you in melee (certain death for them) or to retreat.
Ideally though, you should have a few archers and cavalry units with you.
Indeed, there's no point in charging at horse archers because infantry can't catch them. Hopefully the AI infantry uses the same behaviour when dealing with regular cavalry. Way too often in RTW the enemy starts pursuiting your lone cavalry unit with half of their soldiers.
Lord_Phan
10-25-2006, 18:53
Let me get this straight, you're surrounded by horse archers so you're going to stand there and get shot at until you're all dead? You're one unit against an army of Horse Archers. You somehow think that these thousands of arrows arn't going to cripple, maim and kill your soldiers and add to that you think you'll have the advantage in the melee against their charge and subsequent flank? What school did you guys learn game theory from?
I like everything he said except the part about standing around getting shot being better then charging.
A lone infantry unit standing around getting shot has a 0% chance of living, as opposed to your 1 in a million shot with Charging the Horse Archers. Thus, You must Charge.
Standing and being shot might be the best tactic. The HA may run out of arrows before the infantry unit is dead. Chasing a unit that you can't catch isn't smart. You'll loose your shield protection and will get exhausted. Either way in that example given by Palamedes, the infantry unit is not going to win. If the infantry unit could corner one of the HA quickly, then it would be better to charge, but I don't think the AI is sophisticated tenough o figure out that it can corner a unit.
Also, if the enemy cav are not shooters, an infantry unit should wait and make the cav charge. It was relatively easy to exploit the AI's tendency to chase enemy cav units with infantry in the previous games.
Palamedes post is very encouraging concerning the battle AI. It shows some innovation in this area, and considerable effort to address possible exploits of this new AI. I think the concensus around here was that RTW battle AI was very similar to STW, but it didn't work as well given the new battle engine. They either had to change the AI or return the gameplay to a stronger rock, paper, scissors system to get more challenging SP battles without resorting to simply giving the AI more combat bonuses.
I agree with Kor Khan.
You have a greater chance of survial if you stay put and take cover behind your shield.
If you chase them you will only die tired.
Lord_Phan
10-25-2006, 19:04
If it was 1 unit vs 1 unit I'd agree with you.
If this was out in the field you should fall back. If you're surrounded in your city center and they're surrounding you shooting at you then it's time to gamble. Standing there dying is not preferable to charging and dying.
Anyway it's highly situational. I think it was a bad example. Ideally the AI wouldn't put itself in that position. Strategic AI should be thinking 3 moves ahead based on it's possible enemies. I was merely pointing out the risk to reward situation involved, aswell as the fact that the cavalry charge and subsquent flank would decimate the infantry unit. If it was pikeman it'd be best to back into a corner assuming of course the amount of horsearchers shooting at you isn't mathematically going to reduce you unit all but a few men.
wraithdt
10-25-2006, 19:13
What you will love and ER is yet to see, is that when the AI has more missile strength than you it will ensure that its non-skirmish units all skirmish as a battle group so that it can continue to shoot you to pieces. For those that know TW battle AI you know that this change is major, previously when you lost the shootout you could just charge and the AI would oblige and charge back not using its missile superiority. Anyway tomorrow I will set up a custom battle between a Mongol hit and run army and a slow moving infantry heavy European army, ER can play it and I will ask if he can give you an accurate assessment of where AI is at.
This is awesome. I'm happy and fearful at the same time. I'm really gonna dread fighting the Mongols or any army with a large HA force in M2TW. Sucks to be at the receiving end of an arrow storm.:sweatdrop:
Geoffrey S
10-25-2006, 19:13
Standing there dying is preferable in almost all cases. The longer they hold out, the longer they've got chance of reinforcements of some kind arriving to support what is presumably a useful position.
Anyway, thanks to Palamedes for such an extensive and insightful post; it's precisely this kind of thing that is making me hopeful for Medieval 2.
If this was out in the field you should fall back. If you're surrounded in your city center and they're surrounding you shooting at you then it's time to gamble. Standing there dying is not preferable to charging and dying.
I don't see any difference. You dead anyway and you didn't inflict any casualties. In fact, you're dead sooner. So if there are reinforcements coming, you're less likely to be alive by the time they get there. In anycase, I think it's too much to expect AI of the sophistication you want. The game is either going to give you an AI that always chases cav with infantry or doesn't chase. Take your pick, but you can come up with lots of examples where chasing is bad.
Anyway it's highly situational. I think it was a bad example. Ideally the AI wouldn't put itself in that position. Strategic AI should be thinking 3 moves ahead based on it's possible enemies. I was merely pointing out the risk to reward situation involved, aswell as the fact that the cavalry charge and subsquent flank would decimate the infantry unit. If it was pikeman it'd be best to back into a corner assuming of course the amount of horsearchers shooting at you isn't mathematically going to reduce you unit all but a few men.
The whole idea of holding the city by protecting the central plaza is artificial. If the infantry unit backed up aganst a wall or into a corner to protect its flanks, the plaza falls after 3 minutes and the city is lost. Even if you charge after one of the HA, the city falls 3 minutes later while the infantry unit is chasing the HA down one of the streets.
Wow. I have to say I'm pretty impressed by Jason's post. I too concur with LadyAnn that I really appreciate it when CA shares that kind of information with us. I think I'm actually starting to feel some optimism for the game again, which is a pretty strange sensation at this point. (It could just be a side effect from sleep deprivation, however, so I can't be too sure yet. ~:rolleyes: )
Regardless, kudos to Palamedes and CA for reaching out to us veterans and explaining the combat AI in more detail. :2thumbsup:
Bob the Insane
10-25-2006, 19:34
I guess this discussion demonstrates why the AI can never be perfect... There is no perfect in tactics and battles. Decisions can only be judged good or bad in hindsight once the battle is done.
And even then historians and armchair generals with analyze and critique battle for centuries or even millenia... :book:
Personally that was an excellent post. It was very useful to understand some of the 'thinking' behind the AI. I hope this sor of dialogue continues and extends to cover both Campaign AI and siege AI - both attacking and defending.
Barkhorn1x
10-25-2006, 19:52
Excellent post by Jason - excellent detail. And from that detail one now understands that CA understands what "we" are looking for in a TAC AI.
Barkhorn.
Prince of the Poodles
10-25-2006, 19:58
Great news!
It seems like they've really put a lot more thought into everything about this game.
8)
I agree with the general upbeat nature of comments :yes:
Rather than debating the nature of best defense in an impossible situation (sometimes charging out in a blaze of glory will be be the highest chance of a win out of defeat, other times turtling is best), I'm much much more interested in the AI keeping formation right up to battle :2thumbsup:
One of the biggest problems with TW AI in the past has been that it breaks formation to engage so that where you might lose terribly against a particular AI army had it kept formation in attack, it breaks up & attacks piecemeal resulting in a victory for the player.
Particularly so in the case of a pike phalanx army.
If this is now fixed, then single player is now going to be much harder I think :skull:
Now if the claims of improved diplomatic AI also stand up & it is actually possible to have an angry AI cowed into a reluctant peace by a string of defeats, then this will be a game really living up to the billing!
This has got to be the best news about the ai EVER!!!!!!
^^^
Agreed. Terrific post, and I commend him on his willingness to post something like that. Shows they do care.
This thread just got me really psyched for Nov. the 16th. :2thumbsup:
shifty157
10-26-2006, 01:58
Thats some really good stuff to hear. Perhaps our constant complaining has finally gotten to them? Though i dont think we're placing such a high bar for CA. I think CA is placing it for themselves. When you create such an amazing game with such tactical potential to be explored and exploited, average mediocre RTS AI just wont cut it. You need AI that is above and beyond.
Like Palamedes said. Up until now the AI was purely calculated on an individual unit basis without any real concern for the overall strategy. This sufficed for STW and MTW because tactics in these periods were generally much less rigid and much more based around charging disorganized mobs of men (obviously there are some exceptions but on the whole they are rather few and far between). In RTW however the weakness of this type of AI became extremely apparent because tactics and formations in the ancient were very complex and very rigid and the units themselves were very specialized for a single particular task within the larger whole of the army. The army had to work together as it was meant to otherwise the battle would be lost. This fact was most noticeable with the phalanx armies that absolutely required the entire army to hold one solid battleline. The AI's inability to work together to this extent simply made such extremely specialized and rigid tactics impossible.
From what ive seen of the AI in custom battles on the first demo it has improved very well in working as a single army. When my army placed on a defensive position with a cliff (or other impassable terrain) in front of it the AI will now attack up one side of the cliff with the majority of its force while sending a smaller flanking force around the other way. ANother instance that i was rather impressed with was a setup where the AI was attacking me. The majority of its force began in front of me but two units started to my flank beyond a small town. The town had a single intersection and was directly along the AI's path to my position so i sent two units to the town and set them up to either side of the intersection. In RTW the AI unit would have marched straight down the center of street and into the intersection allowing me to flank him from either side. In this case however the AI went out of its way around the town and completely bypassed my little trap. By the time i realized that there was no chance of the AI marching into the town as i had hoped it was too late and the main force of the AI had already come up and cut my ambushing units off from the rest of my army. In an effort to reconnect them with my battleline i sent them to attack the AI flank so that they could fight their way through, extend my battleline, and roll the AI flank at the same time. Unfortunately for me the AI intercepted them in mid charge with a reserve unit and proceeded to surround and overwhelm them. I must say that i was very surprised and very impressed with this classic blitzkreig maneuvre.
Overall im very happy with the developers being more open about what theyre doing. Its not like theyre releasing coding secrets that other developers can take advantage of. I really cant think of any negative impact that most may have had. Quite the contrary everyone has nothing but praises and happiness. I hope CA is seeing the very large benefit of having open and informative relations with theyre community. It seems theyre finally coming out of their shell and seeing the light.
I have to be honest and say that six months ago i was so disappointed with RTW that i decided not to but MTW2 until after i started getting everyone's impressions on the forums. I didnt want to buy another game that i would only play through to completion twice. But since then i have to say that because CA has been a bit more open about its developement ive been won over. I preordered the game a couple weeks ago and now i cant wait for it to come. Itll be like christmas came early this year.
Keep up the tireless improvement CA. Its makinga real impact.
Well, what can I add? ~;) Long live Palamedes!!! ~D ~:cheers:
Wow, I'm completely taken aback... by the comments of course, and by personal experience just now. I just played 3 custom battles with the cool stuff released at the TWC and to my amazement, lost 2 out of 3 battles. And the only one I won was down to the wire... wow... It was so much fun, I can't even believe it. The army cohesion is completely awesome, everything... so... good... Ok so I'm gonna' stop now, as you can see I can't even gather words to form decent sentences, I'm just so happy and anxious for the game to come out. Yay.
When my army placed on a defensive position with a cliff (or other impassable terrain) in front of it the AI will now attack up one side of the cliff with the majority of its force while sending a smaller flanking force around the other way.
Shogun & MTW AI was entirely capable of this sort of Maneuvre.
Its rare but the RTW AI can do it too if it feels it has the advantage.
Orda Khan
10-26-2006, 13:54
This was a promising post. I appreciate CA offering information like this; it does not spoil surprises, it does the complete opposite. The very thought that the AI is a capable opponent makes SP begin to sound interesting. I can't wait to start creating Historical Battles
.....Orda
shifty157
10-26-2006, 14:31
Shogun & MTW AI was entirely capable of this sort of Maneuvre.
Its rare but the RTW AI can do it too if it feels it has the advantage.
Actually it may have looked like it but having just played a shogun campaign a couple weeks ago if troops go up either side of a cliff its onlt because each unit is taking the fastest rout to you. So units on the left flank will go up the left side and units on the right flank will go up the right side depending on what the shortest distance is.
In MTW2 its clear that the AI does it on purpose because it sends the flanking force around the other side even if going around the cliff means going well out of their way. I also think that the number of units that the AI decides to send is inversly proportional to the distance. So the farther away the other side of the cliff is, the fewer units the AI will send.
Wandarah
10-26-2006, 14:31
Great news.
But I think we probably need to start a 'Save Palamedes' fund. Surely this post isnt sanctioned.
AussieGiant
10-26-2006, 15:16
All I have to say is...
http://www.blueharvest.net/sound/misc/impresive.wav
professorspatula
10-26-2006, 16:19
A good bit of positive marketing there to get onside the few doubters who were still unconvinced after the recent batch of reviews. Hopefully AI will become more and more of a priority now the graphical side is pretty excellent and perhaps no longer needs the emphasis put on it in previews and what not. Ideally the AI will at some stage have varying personalties, with advance tactics ignored by armies led by non-experienced or idiot commanders. We could be a fair way from that though. For now I'll settle for an AI that gives the player a few headaches.
Vladimir
10-26-2006, 18:11
Let me get this straight, you're surrounded by horse archers so you're going to stand there and get shot at until you're all dead? You're one unit against an army of Horse Archers. You somehow think that these thousands of arrows arn't going to cripple, maim and kill your soldiers and add to that you think you'll have the advantage in the melee against their charge and subsequent flank? What school did you guys learn game theory from?
:no: Don't run, you'll just die tired. :skull:
Mount Suribachi
10-26-2006, 18:41
Brilliant post! This is exactly the kind of thing that the TW community has been dying to hear, full marks to Palamedes for sharing that with us.
I've been saying it repeatedly the last month, its very obvious to me that CA are trying really hard to win back the trust of the community. I for one congratulate & thank them for this new found trust in, and interaction with, the TW fanbase :bow:
I like everything he said except the part about standing around getting shot being better then charging.
A lone infantry unit standing around getting shot has a 0% chance of living, as opposed to your 1 in a million shot with Charging the Horse Archers. Thus, You must Charge.
There is an option: withdraw and fight another day :P
Annie
ElectricEel
10-26-2006, 21:16
I like this version of CA :D
Annie Yes, this has certainly made me much more optimistic about MTW2.
There is an option: withdraw and fight another day
Not in the situation postulated which is a single unit of heavy infantry trapped defending a city against an army of horse archers.
Its a lose lose situation.
That unit can't win by chasing down the much faster horses but it also can't win by sitting there getting shot up.
I'd say probably the best the AI could do in that situation would be to have the defending unit attempt to hold the wall breach & go down in combat there.
ProudNerd
10-27-2006, 11:10
I was really tempted to post a new thread just to make sure everyone got the news but it makes more sense for me to post in here.
I just read an incredibly insightful post by one of the developers (Palamedes) over at the official forums. He was posting in reaction to the negative reaction people have had over the AI in the older (Build 47) demo.
This is amazing stuff; amazing as in this is the single most informative post on the AI I have ever seen coming from one of the developers...
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessageRange?topicID=5133.topic&start=41&stop=59
:2thumbsup: :thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
mother of god...best post ever...that sounds fantastic! Thanks heaps for posting this. Its wonderful when dev teams listen :D
ProudNerd
10-27-2006, 11:21
For along time I cursed CA in ways that wouldn't get me warnings on this forum, upset that a game with so much potential turned out so wrong (RTW).
Palamedes post may make me rethink CA.
You echo my thoughts exactly. It angered me that such an amazing game was going down the tubes but ca has really made me turn that idea around...
i am delighted with the content of Palemedes post.
i am equally delighted that CA allowed this community interaction.
as a person who was/is constantly delighted with M:TW, and utterly indifferent to R:TW, i have very high hopes for M2:TW.
can't wait
I too like this new CA, I may seriously consider buying the game after all.
Orda Khan
10-27-2006, 14:45
Anyway tomorrow I will set up a custom battle between a Mongol hit and run army and a slow moving infantry heavy European army, ER can play it and I will ask if he can give you an accurate assessment of where AI is at.
So? Any news?
........Orda
I spoke to ER yesterday, he's still trying to sort out permission to post some news as the guy in charge of it wasn't there yesterday.
Not in the situation postulated which is a single unit of heavy infantry trapped defending a city against an army of horse archers.
Its a lose lose situation.
That unit can't win by chasing down the much faster horses but it also can't win by sitting there getting shot up.
I'd say probably the best the AI could do in that situation would be to have the defending unit attempt to hold the wall breach & go down in combat there.
In this case, tough luck. :)
Anniep
Orda Khan
10-28-2006, 13:40
Any news on that report?
.....Orda
Furious Mental
10-28-2006, 13:44
Are you an optimist? Maybe it means the horse archer AI is so good the guy is embarrassed to say what happened.
Orda Khan
10-28-2006, 17:45
:laugh4:
......Orda
Furious Mental
10-28-2006, 17:54
I'm not an optimist either. But a man can dream...
screwtype
10-28-2006, 20:13
Palamedes is very naughty to tell us all that, I prefer to be pleasantly suprised by a tough AI and I don't really want to be told in advance what the AI will or will not do in response to my moves. I like to learn these kinds of details myself, by trial and error. That's what makes games fun!
All the same I think it's good he's reassured the community about this "AI armies doing nothing" problem. I just don't think he should have gone into such detail about it. It would have been enough to have said "don't worry, we are aware of that problem and it's been fixed". But good on him for trying to keep us informed, there hasn't been enough of that from CA in the past.
blahblahblah
10-28-2006, 20:34
Sweet, dam I wonder if I can stand up to those AIs when I saught war against them with 2000+ men.
Orda Khan
10-28-2006, 22:05
"don't worry, we are aware of that problem and it's been fixed". But good on him for trying to keep us informed, there hasn't been enough of that from CA in the past.
But that kind of reply has caused resentment for so long and on the battlefield, tactically, it has been a cake-walk against all but enormous odds and even then the losses were heavily one sided. I like honesty. I appreciate that work has been done in this area and the information he imparted tells me that the AI is beginning to actually think. This game series has been running for a while, the tactical AI has not changed much and CA obviously feel proud of their achievements. Good for them, I say, to throw down the gauntlet. I'll bet there are a host waiting to pick it up. The news has certainly stirred my appetite to give SP more attention
.......Orda
screwtype
10-29-2006, 01:17
But that kind of reply has caused resentment for so long
I agree Orda and I'm very appreciative that P. went out of his way to keep everyone so well informed. But, you know, there's a happy medium somewhere between not informing you enough and telling you too much. If they've built a different and better AI, I certainly don't want to know in advance of every change that's been made, because it spoils the fun.
In general, I do think that gamers want to know far too much about what will be included in an upcoming game. If you know everything beforehand, where is the joy of discovery when you finally get the product? So I don't want CA to switch from telling us nothing at all to sharing every little detail. If they start doing that, I'll just have to stop coming to TW forums, LOL.
So I don't want CA to switch from telling us nothing at all to sharing every little detail. If they start doing that, I'll just have to stop coming to TW forums, LOL.
I do not think that Palamedes shared every little detail with you. ~;) So, do not worry there will be plenty to discover. :knight:
Also, you might know every little detail of how to ride a bicycle but would it spoil the fun of riding a bicycle? I do not think so.
Orda Khan
10-29-2006, 14:13
Also, you might know every little detail of how to ride a bicycle but would it spoil the fun of riding a bicycle? I do not think so.
I love that statement, Cheetah
.......Orda
Orda Khan
10-29-2006, 14:16
..........and still eagerly waiting for that HA report:coffeenews:
........Orda
Encaitar
10-29-2006, 14:52
That analogy's as good as a really good analogy.
Duke John
10-29-2006, 19:51
Yes, but I think that screwtype meant a different analogy: "If you know how your meal is prepared at a restaurant, would you still enjoy eating it as much?"
Yes, but I think that screwtype meant a different analogy: "If you know how your meal is prepared at a restaurant, would you still enjoy eating it as much?"
Well, in any normal restaurant the answer should be yes. ~:)
shifty157
10-30-2006, 01:42
"If you know how your meal is prepared at a restaurant, would you still enjoy eating it as much?"
I really dont see the connection on that one. Sorry.
Any news from ER?
Sol Invictus
10-30-2006, 01:46
An analogy is like a leaky can of paint, if carried to far, it won't apply.
I want to know as much as possible about a game, before I make a purchase.
Money does not grow on trees, you know.
Any news from ER?
I've been chatting to him on msn, it is looking like his reports will be posted on one of the blogs CA do.
Well, in any normal restaurant the answer should be yes. ~:)
Have you seen Waiting, that movie was horrible, I have resolved never to be anything less the super polite to the staff even if my food takes 5 hours. I don't want to eat pubes.
Orda Khan
10-30-2006, 17:34
I've been chatting to him on msn, it is looking like his reports will be posted on one of the blogs CA do.
Oh well ~:( Maybe the game will be released before we see it. In that case I'll test it myself
......Orda
He was hpoing for his first report to be posted on one of the blogs soon, so we'll just have to wait and see.
Faenaris
10-30-2006, 20:34
I had hoped that ER would be allowed to post his reports independently. I don't mind seeing them on CA's blog, but a clinical, cold and detached part of my mind fears for the neutrality of the article. Nobody wants bad publicity, especially about a week and a half before launch. But then again, this is my emotionless part speaking. I'm sure CA won't do anything like censure, not after all the trouble and energy they have invested in the community.
Speaking of which, where is the "Gone Gold" announcement?
EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic by the way.
Any drumming up the hype would only result to total disappointment.
So I think I have been kind to CA to give them only reserved enthusiasm and only promise to play the game the first month or two it is out. That's mainly because the demo and the blogs gave me some hope.
Even in state-censored media, one could always read the truth between the line :). Look for the word "However", folks :)
Annie
(ps.: It was said that during the Cold War, if you read Pravda or listen to Russian News, most are propaganda. However, *winks*, if you hear/read the word "However", you know that there is truth in the sentence it started.)
@Faenaris: I'm pretty confident ER will be able to post whatever he wants here. I think that CA just wants to get the "scoop" on their official blog first, that's all. As I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not intending to grab the game on release day, however, I grant that it's a little easier for me to be patient. ~:)
As far as the "gone gold" date goes, that should happen in the next day or two--at least if they're going to make a Nov 14 release date. That, or the release day has been pushed back a bit. :shrug: Either way, I imagine we should seen an announcent in the next day or two.
Have you seen Waiting, that movie was horrible, I have resolved never to be anything less the super polite to the staff even if my food takes 5 hours. I don't want to eat pubes.
LOL! :laugh4: I loved that movie. A fair number of my friends have waited at restaurants like that (Applebees, TGI Fridays, etc.), so I'd already heard a number of stories involving "nightmare" customers--and the vengance exacted on them by the abused employees. [shudders] A very funny film, though. :2thumbsup:
Mount Suribachi
10-30-2006, 21:57
Speaking of which, where is the "Gone Gold" announcement?
Palamedes mentions it in his post
AussieGiant
10-30-2006, 22:23
Well I just went and did it...
...I dived in and found my Amazon account and password and pre-ordered the the damn game!! :inquisitive:
First time for everything I suppose.
It also helps that my 2.66 Duo Core; 7950 GX2 machine will be delivered sometime on the 7th of November.
I conceded...I'm such a bad, bad person!!
Phalaxar
10-30-2006, 22:47
Palamedes is very naughty to tell us all that, I prefer to be pleasantly suprised by a tough AI and I don't really want to be told in advance what the AI will or will not do in response to my moves. I like to learn these kinds of details myself, by trial and error. That's what makes games fun!
All the same I think it's good he's reassured the community about this "AI armies doing nothing" problem. I just don't think he should have gone into such detail about it. It would have been enough to have said "don't worry, we are aware of that problem and it's been fixed". But good on him for trying to keep us informed, there hasn't been enough of that from CA in the past.
You don't want the info, try not hanging on a board about the game. :beam:
It's great to hear that info about the game. I'm glad there's an improvement - I felt like I could use too many tricks on the hapless opponents in RTW.
Aussie Giant, thanks for telling us. :yes:
ProudNerd
10-30-2006, 23:05
I dont buy this crap about the AI i don't think otumba is very scripted since its a huge open area and units still constantly stand under fire as i mentioned in the new demo impressions topic. I just hope they aren't bsing because its going to be even worst if they did.
Faenaris
10-30-2006, 23:05
@Faenaris: I'm pretty confident ER will be able to post whatever he wants here. I think that CA just wants to get the "scoop" on their official blog first, that's all. As I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not intending to grab the game on release day, however, I grant that it's a little easier for me to be patient. ~:)
As far as the "gone gold" date goes, that should happen in the next day or two--at least if they're going to make a Nov 14 release date. That, or the release day has been pushed back a bit. :shrug: Either way, I imagine we should seen an announcent in the next day or two.
Well, I'm looking forward to the blog in any case. Roll on, CA. :)
Also, lets hope that the game isn't pushed back. It is supposed to come out on the 10th in the UK and I have set my sights on that date. If I have to wait a week longer, I will lose the last traces of my shattered sanity. :dizzy2:
Palamedes mentions it in his post
Thanks for the headsup :). But I was looking for some kind of official, press thingy statement. Like Martok said, it will probably air in the next few days.
AussieGiant
10-31-2006, 12:45
You don't want the info, try not hanging on a board about the game. :beam:
It's great to hear that info about the game. I'm glad there's an improvement - I felt like I could use too many tricks on the hapless opponents in RTW.
Aussie Giant, thanks for telling us. :yes:
Cheers Phalaxar...I thought a few people might want to know :laugh4:
Seriously, the depth of Pal's explanantion was surprising and certainly prompted me to go and pre-order the game for the first time ever.
I can only say that in my opinion CA is doing everything they can to make sure the issues from previous titles are being looked at.
Everyone can debate to the extent CA are going about this to the cows come home, but they are certainly addressing it, and more importantly "Communicating" it. Which, in it self is the key change from before.
OldSchool
11-01-2006, 00:43
Thanks for posting this. I have to admit that RTW jumped the shark for me and I had decided to abandon the Total War series. Although a post like that is not enough to get me back on the bandwagon, it is enough to get me back on the fence. I've never seen a game franchise become good again after it has gone bad, but I sincerely hope CA can do it and live up to the legacy of STW and MTW. At any rate, it looks promising and the open-ness is much appreciated.
MTW is still one of my favorite games of all time. I hope I can add MTW2 to that list as well.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.